hi *, On Jan 9, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > Happy New Year! > > I thought it would be good to quickly summarize where we are with our > work in OAuth as we start into 2015. > > Late last year we issued a few working group last calls. > > * SPOP > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-spop/ > > The WGLC was started already in the summer and led to a huge amount of > feedback. This lead to an improved draft. > > Nat, John, Naveen: What is the status of the document? What are the open > issues? > > At a minimum there is the issue with the name of the document since it > actually does not propose a proof-of- > possession solution. > > * Token Introspection > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-introspection/ > > Justin told me that he believes the document is ready for the IESG. I > will do my shepherd write-up and shepherd review of the latest version > before I hand it over to Kathleen. > > * Dynamic Client Registration > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-dyn-reg-21 > > We had a fair amount of discussion about this document on the mailing > list in response to my shepherd write-up. A new version of the document > has been published and I will have to double-check whether the review > comments have been incorporated. Then, the document will be ready for > the IESG. > > * OAuth 2.0 Proof-of-Possession (PoP) Security Architecture > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-pop-architecture/ > > We issued a WGLC and received comments, which had not yet been > incorporated. The obvious next step is to publish a new version of the > document with the comments addressed. There is also the new mailing list > <unbearable> and we have to figure out how this aligns with the work we > are doing. Info is here: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13997.html > > Derek will be the shepherd for that document. > > I also wanted to produce a short write-up in response to a news story > late last year that blamed OAuth for getting things wrong while the real > issue is rather with the way how responsibility are distributed among > different players in the eco-system. Here is the link to the discussion > and the news story: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13929.html > > We also have various documents in IESG processing, namely > * JWT > * Assertion Framework > * SAML Bearer Assertion > * JWT Bearer Assertion > > Kathleen asked us to do a final review of the documents to make sure > that various review comments have been addressed appropriately. I am > planning to have a look at it today. > > There is also a webinar upcoming, namely about Kantara UMA. This webinar > will be a bit different than earlier presentations you have heard about > UMA since it will be focused on Internet of Things. This is part of the > webinar series we do in the IETF ACE working group. Here is a link to > the announcement: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14015.html > > Related to the work in this group is the SASL OAuth draft, which is > currently in WGLC in the KITTEN working group and you might want to do a > quick review of the document: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-kitten-sasl-oauth-18 > > Here is the WGLC announcement from the KITTEN chairs: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg14020.html > > There is also the "authentication in OAuth" topic that we wanted to > progress. There is a write-up from Justin available, which will inform > the debate, but there was also interest to do something more official in > the working group. We discussed this at the last IETF meeting. > > Also at the last IETF meeting we briefly spoke about the token > exchange/token delegation work and I got the impression that there is a > bit of confusion about the scope of the work and what functionality > should be covered in what document. > > The last two topics seem to be suitable for conference calls. So, we > will try to arrange something to progress these topics. > > Finally, there is the open redirect Antonio raised in > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg13367.html. The > attack might be difficult to understand but it is still worthwhile > to make an attempt to explain it to a wider audience (and also the > mitigation technique). I believe a draft would be quite suitable for > this purpose and I have spoken with Antonio about it already. > thanks Hannes & Derek for including this here. Even if I do not have any experience in IETF processes and related I was wondering if there is any change I can take a stub at and try to prepare a draft about this particular issue. What do you guys think? Is there also anybody that would like to collaborate with me on this matter? regards antonio > These are the items that come to mind right now. A lot of work ahead of > us, as it seems. > > What is missing from the list? Feedback? > > Ciao > Hannes & Derek > > _______________________________________________ > OAuth mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
